RFACS

A nameless critic wrote:

Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2000 02:31:31 -0500 (EST)
From: sportyspam@harm.dhs.org
Subject: Re: Weapons interface conundra - SG2

  You're trying to make the superadvanced weapons of Stargrunt even MORE

like their primitive [i.e. modern] counterparts?

** I am? I thought it was just the opposite. :(

 To what end?  Are you
going to next take some vietnam game and try to make all their weapons
work more like flintlocks and blunderbusses?

** Hardly. Obviously I wasn't expressing myself clearly.

  If it really bothers you, I'd suggest the solution to your problem is
to
change the names of the weapons around until their relative stats are
more
to your liking instead of changing the whole system around the weapons.

** Sure, that's one approach. Though changing the names to attach
different stats is a lot like changing the system... and I'm not
suggesting a revolutionary departure (well, I briefly toyed with it, but
even I realize that is a gross solution given we have a tested set of
rules). Merely allowing rapid fire ACs and MDCs to engage infantry
effectively. And I tossed out the suggestion that maybe all weapons
might have such a mode... as a reflection in what I've seen in the arms
community today. If you read JDW and other such sources, you quickly
come to appreciate that people have developed a type of ammo for almost
every situation for almost every weapon system - and if you were
spec'ing a weapon system for deployment light-years away with
potentially fast changing uses, you might well want it to be capable to
operate effectively in multiple modes. If you like the idea of
specialization in weapons systems (this one a tank killer, this one an
infantry killer, this one not so useful for either...), then you can
largely ignore the current day trends to provide multi-mission
capability to most weapons systems. Stick with the rules as they are if
you like them. Me, I just like things that make sense ... and a
vehicular big-brother of a smaller personal weapon system should not
(IMO) be less effectual.

** What bothers me is the fact that a type of weapon system (rapid fire
projectile weapons of 15-30mm range) are so palsied by the system as to
make a common light calibre SAW a more dangerous weapon. This has
*nothing* to do with the period it is set in... it doesn't matter what
description you use, when a squad support weapon (LMG/GPMG/SAW
equivalent of whatever era) packs more firepower and accuracy and equal
or less penetration than a larger, ostensibly more potent, vehicular
mount autocannon or GAC (MDC for the DS2ers), then one would have to
question the system.

** Simply put, if my SAW rolls d10 or d12 for FP and has an impact of
d10 (and this is ostensibly an AR bullet or bulletsas the Adv AR does
the same impact), whereas my rapid fire autocannon with rounds easily 4x
as heavy or more and firing at least as fast rolls fire control die (a
max of d10, and d6 if one considers the guidance basic for 2183
standards) in place of said d10 or d12 FP for the SAW and its impact is
treated as a d8, then you have to think that the representation of said
autocannon was a little awry.

** In fact, under that system, it'd be far more pragmatic to have a
manually fired SAW (given you get to roll the FP die of d10 or d12) than

a weapon fired by a basic firecontrol (d6). I'm arguing the basic
firecontrol must be relative to the time - 2183 basic would of course be
considered ultra advanced by today's standards. So we have a firecontrol
which is very sophisticated, stabilized in three axes, and incorporating
better-than-current software, firmware, and hardware.... and it can't
hit anywhere near as effectively as a good old eyeballed shot from the
gunner. And this ignores the fact the vehicle mounted cannon may spit
out rounds two or three times faster (cyclic) than the basic SAW *and*
it has better sustained fire.

** And impact.... I buy the argument not all 30mm shells have the same
oomph when they hit. HOWEVER, I would bet there isn't one 30mm shell
that'll hit and do as little damage as a 5.5mm AR round. Just the sheer
mass of the bullet itself would be enough to gaurantee nasty things
happen to the target, not to mention the total kinetic energy of the
round. Giving this a d8 while the SAW gets a D10 is kind of nuts. Impact
in the game is a composite of penetration and damage.... and the 30mm
would probably beat the 5.5mm in both areas. Even if a lot of its KE
can't be shared with the target due to overpenetration, its still going
to leave one awesome hole in whatever it hits. And I'll bet do more
damage than an AR round.....

** And just to illustrate that this argument isn't tied to preconceived
notions: I don't care if the rifle of tomorrow is a 10mm caseless round
or a 5mm binary propellant round or a 3mm explosive tipped needle, not
do I care that the RFAC is 20mm with API, APDS, APKE or any other kind
of weapon. The point is the niche this weapon fills - that of a weapon
effective against light armour and effective against infantry - will
still exist and whatever version of the weapon existent in 2183 would be
more effective <comparatively> than the 2183 SAW **** OR ELSE WHY WOULD
THEY HAVE IT ****?  It has marginal performance against armour (d10
penetration vs d12 for even level 1 armour) and crappy performance
against infantry (d8 impact, d6 to d10 fire control). Heck, I'd almost
rather take the FSE AR vs. light armour. Or a decent SAW.... the impact
is about the same due to the particulars of level-1 armour... and the FP
yields a much better chance of a hit vs. infantry targets. **** and this
is the crux of it! The performance is just not good enough to justify
its existence as a weapons system - it would have been done away with in
favour of the SAW or some other system... ****

** Of course, YMMV. Everyone has a right to their opinion. But after
seeing a Vulcan rip apart 3/8" plywood targets, and punch holes through
trees, and having seen it carve trucks in half like it was a hot knife
through foam, I have no doubt it is FAR deadlier than a single SAW to
infantry than the game represents. And correspondingly, the 2183 version
of same should be appropriately proportioned to the SAW of that period -
*regardless of what those systems are actually taken to be*.

 ** As someone pointed out, multiple .50 cal mounts, 20mm autocannons,
and other weapons used for AA in WW2 were deployed against infantry very
successfully. This was repeated in many wars in SE asia, in Afghanistan
with the Russians, and in plenty of US army training excercises in more
modern days. And I'd guess that there will always be a need for more and
more modern rapid fire guns - be they gauss, CPR, laser, particle....
and said guns will probably continue to be obnoxious when used against
infantry. Presuming we still use infantry, and warfare looks anything
like the game suggests (which I accept as an underlying "suspension of
disbelief"), then we should also presume that the relationship between
infantry carried weapons and their vehicular brethren remain somewhat
proportional. If not, we've got SST with everyone luggng nukes and
hopping over city blocks.... and that is a whole other kettle of soup.

Tom